HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201500153 Review Comments 2016-04-18Short Review Comments Report for:
ARB201500153
SubApplication Type:
Adelaide
Conceptual Site Development Plan
Date Completed:01/08/2016
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The ARB review of this proposal has been rescheduled from February 1 to February 16 to allow the
applicant time to address issues including:
1. landscape and utility conflicts
2. frontage planting depth
3. coordination of plans regarding stormwater facilities
4. landscape buffer with a rural character
Division:
Date Completed:01/29/2016
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The ARB review of this proposal has been rescheduled to February 8 to allow the applicant time to
address issues including:
1. landscape and utility conflicts
2. frontage planting depth
3. coordination of plans regarding stormwater facilities
4. landscape buffer with a rural character
Division:
Date Completed:02/16/2016
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The ARB review of this proposal has been rescheduled from February 16 to March 7 to allow the
applicant time to address issues including:
1. landscape and utility conflicts
2. frontage planting depth
3. coordination of plans regarding stormwater facilities
4. landscape buffer with a rural character
Division:
Date Completed:04/11/2016
Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski ARB
Review Status:Requested Changes
Reviews Comments:The ARB review of this proposal has been deferred to allow the applicant time to address issues
including:
1. landscape and utility conflicts
2. frontage planting depth
3. coordination of plans regarding stormwater facilities
4. landscape buffer with a rural character
Division:
Page: 1 of 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: May 19, 2016
Margaret Maliszewski
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 4:46 PM
To: 'Justin Shimp'
Cc: Megan Yaniglos
Subject: ARB review of the Adelaide rezoning
Justin,
As we discussed on the telephone this afternoon, I will move the ARB review of the Adelaide rezoning application from
February 1 to February 16, 2016. (Note that this is a Tuesday—not the regular Monday ARB meeting day.)This will
allow a little time for you to address some of the issues we discussed. I've listed those issues below. Please note that I
must forward my staff report to the ARB one week prior to the meeting day, and I will need time to prepare that report, so
I'll need revised drawings preferably no later than mid-week the last week of January. Earlier would be better.
1. The location of the sanitary sewer line on the application plan suggests that trees can't be planted in the frontage
area shown. You've indicated that the sewer line location is not correct, so there actually is room to plant trees.
This needs clarification on the drawings.
2. The application plan shows existing underground utilities along the frontage. You've indicated that there are no
easements associated with these utilities, so there actually is room to plant trees. This also needs clarification in
the submittal.
3. You've indicated that the anticipated depth of the frontage planting is approximately 30'. (Looking at this after
our conversation, it looks like the 30' includes the path, so the planting depth is less than 30'.)
4. The application plan and colored ARB plan show significantly different stormwater facilities along the EC
frontage. I understand the drawings have different purposes, but this discrepancy will likely lead to confusion and
concern at the ARB meeting. The extent of stormwater facilities shown on the application plan will be a concern.
5. A landscape buffer with a rural character will look very different than a typical Entrance Corridor frontage
planting. Whereas a typical EC frontage treatment consists of(more or less)equally spaced large shade trees with
interspersed ornamental trees and a row of shrubs, a rural character may be better achieved with a continuous,
closely-spaced but seemingly random-spaced mix of trees and shrubs(but predominantly trees), both evergreen
and deciduous. The resulting character would be much denser and less formal than a typical EC planting. The
goal is not to view rolling farmland or a subdivision through and beyond, but to establish a sense of natural
buffering and separation. You suggested supplementing the ARB submittal with a planting detail to address some
of these concepts. That is a good idea. We can check with Megan for additional suggestions on the buffer
planting.
6. It will be a challenge to incorporate stormwater facilities that have an "engineered" appearance into a convincing
rural-character buffer.
I'm also providing here the preliminary comments that I've sent to Megan on the rezoning application plan. These are
much the same as what we've discussed.
1. The plan notes that no historical features have been located on the site. It is Historic Preservation Committee
policy to obtain a photographic record of all buildings to be demolished prior to demolition. It is recommended
that the applicant provide labeled photographs of each building that is to be demolished for the development.
2. The color conceptual plan shows trees along the EC frontage. Are these intended to be new trees, existing trees, or
a combination of new and existing?
3. With the layout shown,there appears to be no planting area available along the Rt. 250 Entrance Corridor. The
application plan shows a potential stormwater facility extending nearly the full frontage of the corridor. A path
and underground utilities(fiber optic and copper telecommunication) are located between the facility and the
street, and a sewer line is shown on the Adelaide side of the facility. (A 12"water line is also located along the
frontage, closer to the road.) Where will the EC frontage landscaping be located? Clarify how the frontage
landscaping requirements will be met while avoiding utility conflicts.
1
4. There is a big size discrepanCMetween the EC-fronting stormwater faciliti`'e's"shown on the ARB concept plan and
those shown on the rezoning application plan.
5. The ARB will require that stormwater facilities visible from the EC look like fully integrated landscape elements.
Engineered site features unrelated to the surroundings will not meet the EC guidelines.
6. It is recommended that a creative, holistic approach to the treatment of the EC frontage be devised, to fully
integrate stormwater, landscape, streetscape and path requirements, resulting in a treatment that meets the EC
Guidelines and maintains an appearance that is consistent with the scenic byway.
If you have questions or want to discuss further,just let me know.
Margaret
Margaret M. Maliszewski, Principal Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3276
2